Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Officials Reject Idea of Blackwater Founder Privatizing the War in Afghanistan

posted by martyb on Saturday October 06 2018, @11:09PM   Printer-friendly
from the further-privatizing dept.

takyon writes:

Afghan officials reject push to privatize war

Afghan officials have rejected a proposal by Blackwater founder Erik Prince to have his private military contracting company take over the training and advising of the Afghan armed forces.

Prince lobbied several Afghan politicians on a recent trip to the country and has been discussing his proposal to privatize parts of the U.S. military mission in the country for over a year, according to Reuters.

But Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has repeatedly dismissed the idea. "Under no circumstances will the Afghan government and people allow the counterterrorism fight to become a private, for-profit business," Ghani's national security adviser said in a statement to Reuters Thursday.

U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis has also rejected the proposal, saying in August, "When Americans put their nation's credibility on the line, privatizing it is probably not a wise idea."

See also: The Last Americans Fighting in Afghanistan
17 years later, Americans tend to consider Afghanistan a failure

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Officials Reject Idea of Blackwater Founder Privatizing the War in Afghanistan | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 29 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 07 2018, @06:14AM (3 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 07 2018, @06:14AM (#745399) Journal
    And now a non sequitur since that was irrelevant to my previous two posts.

    Let us note that the four "contractors" weren't mercenaries by the document you quoted, aristarchus.

    A mercenary is any person who:

    (a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

    (b) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar rank and functions in the armed forces of that party;

    (c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict;

    (d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and

    (e) Has not been sent by a State which is not a party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

    2. A mercenary is also any person who, in any other situation:

    (a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad for the purpose of participating in a concerted act of violence aimed at:

    (i) Overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or

    (ii) Undermining the territorial integrity of a State;

    (b) Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation;

    (c) Is neither a national nor a resident of the State against which such an act is directed;

    (d) Has not been sent by a State on official duty; and

    (e) Is not a member of the armed forces of the State on whose territory the act is undertaken.

    Notice the bolded parts. To qualify as a mercenary, for the purpose of this treaty, one has to be recruited for the purpose of directly fighting in a conflict, not merely being armed in a war zone.

    I'm tired of this dumbshit stuff you do, aristarchus. You didn't think a bit before dumping that link. It was completely irrelevant in at least two ways.

  • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday October 07 2018, @09:22AM (2 children)

    by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday October 07 2018, @09:22AM (#745426) Journal

    Sounds like something a merc would say. "Security Contractor"! "Auxillary Forces". "Training and advising". Yeah, right. Bad faith, khallow, the obvious rebuttal is mercenary bad faith.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 07 2018, @12:22PM (1 child)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 07 2018, @12:22PM (#745463) Journal
      Well, you could always look instead of just saying stupid things? Every story has the contractors in question escorting a convoy, allegedly of food. It has some degree of military value since it's supplies for the US side, but the guys weren't there to fight in the war.

      And training and advising of the current story is a legitimate, non-mercenary role for private enterprise by the very link you deigned to provide.

      • (Score: 3, Touché) by aristarchus on Monday October 08 2018, @08:01AM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Monday October 08 2018, @08:01AM (#745859) Journal

        legitimate, non-mercenary role for private enterprise

        Oxymoron, khallow, a "sharp idiot" literally from the Greek, but "contradiction in terms" will suffice. The problem with mercenaries is that the look like soldiers, the problem is they act like private enterprise. Which means, conversely, the problem with Mercantilists is not that that look like private entrepreneurs, but that they are already mercenary, about everything, from blood tests to cancer drugs, to sex and copyrights, education and war. The problem with the "Merchants of Death" is the merchant part, not the dying bit.